Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Tom Hartman, on the Supreme Court

  1. #1

    Tom Hartman, on the Supreme Court

    Listened to his show the other day, and his claim is as follows:

    -The Supreme Court has no right whatsoever to overturn any Law passed by Congress.

    -The Conservative Members of the Supreme Court (all of them) are corrupted by Corporate Influence, and should be impeached for it.

    -The ultimate and only political power should rest in Democracy, the will of the poeple, majority rule as provided for by the elected office holders, President first, Congress et al. second.

    He went on, at great length to cite historic claims that the Court was never intended to perform Constitutional Review, overstepped it's bounds, and was never supposed to be a co-equal branch of Government with the President or Legislature.

    He also mentioned that (R) who describe T. Jiefferson as a Republican are liars, he was a liberal Democrat.

    So, agree? Disagree, and why?

  2. #2
    I'll never understand why you make these threads asking for opinions when you know darn well you will be back by Post #15 to tell us the the correct answer.

    Why not just cut to the chase and tell us all now? :huh:

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    Who is Tom Hartman?

    Obviously not someone worth discussing if he's saying things like above. He's a radio guy? Saying extreme things? I'm shocked.

    It's one thing to have some nobody looking for ratings to say it. In that case, I could not care less. But when the President says it, it's worthy of a reaction. A big one.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 04-05-2012 at 10:25 AM.

  4. #4
    like everything else in politics, its only half true. I agree that the supreme court members are puppets for special interests, of this I have no doubt. But by focusing only on the conservative judges he missed an important opportunity for credibility in the same way that Hannity fails.

    As for the rest of the comments it was standard bumper sticker stuff. Yes the ultimate power should rest in democracy but what does that mean in view of the current state of our democracy?

    I disagree that the supreme court cannot overturn any law passed by congress. If that were so then what would the civil rights movement have looked like?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4427919][B]Who is Tom Hartman[/B]?

    Obviously not someone worth discussing if he's saying things like above. He's a radio guy? Saying extreme things? I'm shocked.[/QUOTE]

    Tom Hartman = Sean Hannity.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4427923]Tom Hartman = Sean Hannity.[/QUOTE]

    As I expected. He's a nobody, not worth anyone's time.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4427919]Who is Tom Hartman?[/QUOTE]

    What Sean Hannity is to Conservativism, Thom Hartman is to Liberalism.

    Political TV Show Host and 3-Hour-Daily Radio Host.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartman[/url]

    I would also stretch that Joe Average ignored the power wielded by these kinds of media personalities at their own peril, right or left. In each case, they have millions listening in every day, 3 hours a day and watching the show, who buy into their arguments lock-stock-and-barrel.

    While I appreciate you and I may feel they're "nobodies", truth is they have more power than the vast majority of elected officials do. An eelcted official gets one vote in Congress, these men, Hannity or Hartman, have millions who will vote as they tell them to.
    Last edited by Warfish; 04-05-2012 at 10:39 AM.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4427922]like everything else in politics, its only half true. I agree that the supreme court members are puppets for special interests, of this I have no doubt. But by focusing only on the conservative judges he missed an important opportunity for credibility in the same way that Hannity fails.

    As for the rest of the comments it was standard bumper sticker stuff. Yes the ultimate power should rest in democracy but what does that mean in view of the current state of our democracy?

    I disagree that the supreme court cannot overturn any law passed by congress. If that were so then what would the civil rights movement have looked like?[/QUOTE]

    I know it's kind of splitting hairs, but it is important to understand in this discussion that this country is not, and never was intended to be a democracy.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    Mr Hartman is obviously the personification of Douchebaggery, if not flaming CockGobblery. :yes:

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4427904]Listened to his show the other day, and his claim is as follows:

    -The Supreme Court has no right whatsoever to overturn any Law passed by Congress.

    -The Conservative Members of the Supreme Court (all of them) are corrupted by Corporate Influence, and should be impeached for it.

    -The ultimate and only political power should rest in Democracy, the will of the poeple, majority rule as provided for by the elected office holders, President first, Congress et al. second.
    [B]
    He went on, at great length to cite historic claims that the Court was never intended to perform Constitutional Review, overstepped it's bounds, and was never supposed to be a co-equal branch of Government with the President or Legislature.[/B]

    He also mentioned that (R) who describe T. Jiefferson as a Republican are liars, he was a liberal Democrat.

    So, agree? Disagree, and why?[/QUOTE]

    The bolded is at the heart of this, and it is ridiculous. Judicial review was first articulated as a principle in [I]Marbury v. Madison[/I], in 1803 - shortly after the Constitution was ratified, while most of the Founders were very much alive and active in government, and at a time when amending the constitution to say "the Supreme Court shall have no power to . . ." would not have been particularly arduous. Despite that, the only real opposition to judicial review at the time was from Jefferson (who happened to be Marshall's political rival and who had just lost the case).

    More, without judicial review, the Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. Congress could pass whatever law it chose, states could enact whatever laws they chose, and conflicts with the Constitution would be irrelevant to those laws' enforceability. Too many countries have written "constitutions" without empowering an effective and independent judiciary to ensure that those constitutions are followed, with disastrous results.

    Tl;dr: Hartmann is very wrong

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4427966]Too many countries have written "constitutions" without empowering an effective and independent judiciary to ensure that those constitutions are followed, with disastrous results.

    Tl;dr: Hartmann is very wrong[/QUOTE]

    Given his political position is more akin to Democratic Communism (generally), he espouses a striong hatred of corporations and private property, a strong love of single-leader-systems ruling benevolently over a "power by the people" state ethic of pure democracy (as opposed to representative republicanism). The ideals he supports are quite in line with the Soviet Unions old Constitution (an interesting read btw), in the rights it claims to give and how it will supply them, including all the usual "the State will supply everyone with..." utopianism/very high taxation for some, no taxation for most.

    Another interesting example of what he was saying, he claimed teh Boston Tea Party was a protest against Corporate Power (the Dutch East India Co.) and the power that Corporation wielded on the English Crown to force the English crown to be so mean to the colonies. He claims it was not a protest over taxation at all, but purely against corporate hegemony. As you might imagine, he is a strong proponent of the "Corporations are Not People" constitutional amendment movement, to strip corporations of all "people" rights, and (as he's implied many times) end the rights of corporations to exist at all, to be replaced with people-run commune type business systems.
    Last edited by Warfish; 04-05-2012 at 11:16 AM.

  12. #12
    Laws mandating someone buy a product is unconstitutional. Obama said so in a Interview on the Ellen Degeneris(sp) show!

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4428017]Laws mandating someone buy a product is unconstitutional. Obama said so in a Interview on the Ellen Degeneris(sp) show![/QUOTE]

    Obama isn't on the Supreme Court. TBD...

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4427966]The bolded is at the heart of this, and it is ridiculous. Judicial review was first articulated as a principle in [I]Marbury v. Madison[/I], in 1803 - shortly after the Constitution was ratified, while most of the Founders were very much alive and active in government, and at a time when amending the constitution to say "the Supreme Court shall have no power to . . ." would not have been particularly arduous. Despite that, the only real opposition to judicial review at the time was from Jefferson (who happened to be Marshall's political rival and who had just lost the case).

    More, without judicial review, the Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. Congress could pass whatever law it chose, states could enact whatever laws they chose, and conflicts with the Constitution would be irrelevant to those laws' enforceability. Too many countries have written "constitutions" without empowering an effective and independent judiciary to ensure that those constitutions are followed, with disastrous results.

    Tl;dr: Hartmann is very wrong[/QUOTE]

    Good post, but you missed the next step:

    why would anyone with google or a decent education make that claim?

    answer: because its a soundbite that will sway voters not really paying attention. The Soviets proved that repeating lies often enough paid dividends.

    It really is all about the checks and balances, b1tches!!!!

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,277
    [QUOTE=quantum;4428056]Good post, but you missed the next step:

    why would anyone with google or a decent education make that claim?

    answer: because its a soundbite that will sway voters not really paying attention. The Soviets proved that repeating lies often enough paid dividends.

    [B]It really is all about the checks and balances, b1tches!!!![/B][/QUOTE]

    Its funny but isn't this what was taught to us in the 4th grade? My daughter is in 7th grade and she had a few assignments reading the constitution and describing the process of checks and balances. I was actually quite happy with the majority of the chapters from her text book on the subject.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4427923]Tom Hartman = Sean Hannity.[/QUOTE]

    Not exactly.

    Sean Hannity believes in the Constitution.

    Hartman and most other lefties, not so much.....

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4428101]Not exactly.

    Sean Hannity believes in the Constitution.

    Hartman and most other lefties, not so much.....[/QUOTE]

    Which is irrelevant to the comparison of Hannity and Hartman as equals in their professions. One biases far right, one far left, both perform the exact same job down to the letter, Political TV Host and Radio Host.

  18. #18
    Hartman is impossible to listen to and Doggin is dead on again.

    Ron Paul pretty much said the same thing last night, no?

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4428036]Obama isn't on the Supreme Court. TBD...[/QUOTE]

    I thought he was the all supreme all knowing one! :confused:

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4427966]Hartmann is very wrong[/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

    As a side note, have there ever been any serious considerations of amending the Constitution to explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of constitutional judicial review?

    It seems like it would be a legitimate amendment and would cement the principle beyond a ruling from a case in the early 19th century.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us